Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Set aside judgment

Legal area

Court

5 Mar 2026

KOK WAH FOOD SDN BHD TEPPANYAKI CONCEPT F&B MANAGEMENT SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-A72NCvC-230-02/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BA-A72NCvC-230-02/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Service by registered post to the defendant's registered office complied with the Rules and was valid; the defendant failed to raise any triable issues beyond bare denials and unduly delayed (approximately 573 days) in applying to set aside, constituting abuse of process; therefore the application to set aside the default judgment is dismissed and the default judgment remains.
22 Apr 2025

Megatech Electrical Engineering Sdn. Bhd. Liew Ching Ding (berniaga di bawah nama dan gaya AC Electrical)

Citation

KF-A72NCvC-82-12/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

KF-A72NCvC-82-12/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Service was properly effected: writ and statement were sent to the defendant's last known business address as per SSM search and acknowledged by AR signed by a person at that address; the defendant failed to rebut that the recipient was a representative and failed to provide evidence of an address change. The proposed defence was a bare assertion without supporting evidence and lacked merit. Therefore the application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed with costs.
21 Oct 2024

SUPER GOLD REALTY (M) SDN. BHD. LIVINGSMILE SDN. BHD. (DAHULUNYA DIKENALI SEBAGAI A & T DENTAL SDN. BHD.)

Citation

PA-11ANCvC-2-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-11ANCvC-2-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court refused to intervene: because the strike out application (Enclosure 41) was heard inter partes and decided on the merits, the Magistrate was functus officio once the Order and Judgment were perfected and the proper mode to challenge those determinations was by appeal, not by an application to set aside; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the Plaintiff.
28 Mar 2023

MARZIDA BINTI MANSOR Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja

Citation

B-03(IM)(NCC)-12-02/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

B-03(IM)(NCC)-12-02/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court dismissed the appeal: the EPF Act supplies the relevant rate mechanism and imposes late payment charges (no uncertainty), the Summary Judgment of 14.05.2009 remained valid and enforceable, the Appellant failed to timely apply to set aside or vary the SJ and made part payments admitting the debt, no credible evidence of an outside compromise was produced to oust the Respondent's rights; consequently the Bankruptcy Notice was valid and the High Court rightly allowed the Respondent's appeal against the SAR.
26 Apr 2022

JEE JEE HOE (NO.K/P : 760424-07-5156) NG MEI OY (NO. K/P : 750801-07-5612)

Citation

PA-12ANCVC-37-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12ANCVC-37-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Service of the writ was regular (registered post, AR evidence 'Not Claimed', substituted service by advertisement and contract clause permitting service at last known address), the appellant provided no reasonable explanation for delay and failed to disclose a prima facie meritorious defence; therefore the application to set aside the default judgment is dismissed. The error in the interest rate is correctable by amendment and the judgment is upheld subject to amendment of interest to the rate permitted (reduction to 5%).
14 Feb 2022

KONTENA NASIONAL GLOBAL LOGISTIC SDN.BHD(Syarikat : 24298-T) YEAP YEONG KIAN (NO. K/P : 570411-07-5715)

Citation

PA-12ANCVC-37-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12ANCVC-37-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the Sessions Court ruling was final and appealable because it finally disposed of the parties' rights, and that the default judgment dated 8.09.2017 was extinguished and ceased to be enforceable when the originating suit 2016 was withdrawn by the plaintiff; accordingly the Sessions Court decision was affirmed and the plaintiff's appeal dismissed.
22 Dec 2021

NARIMAH BINTI MAHMOOD MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

Citation

WA-12ANCVC-145-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCVC-145-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The default judgment was regular because the writ was served at the defendant's last known address which the defendant did not dispute, and the defendant's allegation of forgery amounted to a bare denial without supporting evidence; therefore there was no meritorious defence and the appeal failed.
5 Sept 2021

GINMA INDUSTRIES SDN BHD XIN HE FENG (M) SDN BHD

Citation

JG-A72-3-03/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JG-A72-3-03/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Default judgment was regularly obtained because service by leaving the cause papers at the defendant's registered address/postbox based on SSM records was valid; defendant failed to prove a prima facie meritorious defence (failed to prove payment for September 2020 or inability under the Covid-19 Act); clause 7.1(b) entitled plaintiff to claim pro‑rata rent to 18.9.2020; application to set aside dismissed and costs awarded to plaintiff.
19 Aug 2021

TWIN PAVILION DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD LEE ZHENG HAN

Citation

WA-12ANCVC-8-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCVC-8-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to show improper service or a meritorious defence; late payment did not preclude the plaintiff's claim for late delivery damages; the alleged events did not amount to force majeure or frustration of the contract; and delivery is determined by the CFO date, making the default judgment valid and not to be set aside.
8 Sept 2020

KOMPLEKS PERKAYUAN KELANTAN SDN BHD HUSAM BIN MUSA

Citation

DA-23CY-06-09/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-23CY-06-09/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because defendant's solicitor was present when the unless order and case management directions were given, the solicitor's knowledge is imputed to the defendant; defendant failed to file witness lists and witness statements as ordered, causing prejudice and demonstrating lack of a meritorious defence, the court properly entered judgment under the rules and refused to set it aside; the stay application was premature as assessment had not occurred.